Pages

Speaking of Bullying

Thursday, November 28, 2013

The federal government’s approach to “cyberbullying”
in Bill C-13, seems more likely to empower Big Brother than to meaningfully protect
or empower little sister, or any children, for that matter. At a press conference Justice Minister Peter
MacKay claimed that the government’s priority is to “keep Canadians safe”,
“particularly our children”. If so, this
government has a funny way of showing it.
Not only does the bill fall well short of meaningfully addressing
“cyberbullying”, it makes even this limited response conditional on accepting
increased state surveillance writ large.

“Cyberbullying” has become an umbrella term
for a range of behaviours – everything from repeated insults motivated by
personal disputes between individuals to invasive and hateful attacks motivated
by sexist, homophobic, racist and other prejudices against entire groups. It is clear that a unidimensional response
such as that found in the bill is highly unlikely to meaningfully resolve the
issues at stake. As a result, many have
called for a comprehensive national strategy that identifies what kinds of
behaviours, practices and forms of harm need to be addressed. Only then can we assess the potential of
current legal and policy mechanisms, the gaps that remain and the responses needed.

We know, for example, that those who are
seen as “different” are more likely to be targeted by “bullying”. The kinds of things that make someone
“different” include race, disability, sexual orientation and sexual
identity. Getting at the root of that
kind of “cyberbullying” will require strategies that address systemic racism,
sexism and homophobia, as well as educational initiatives that teach attackers
other ways of behaving. Long-term change
requires a strategy that includes policies aimed at inclusion and respect for
diversity, human rights education, behavioural approaches, restorative
practices and, in some cases, criminal law responses.

The “cyberbullying” bill addresses only
certain kinds of behaviour and offers only one kind of response. It targets non-consensual
distribution of intimate images, hate speech based on sex, age, national origin
and mental or physical ability, and false, indecent and harassing
communications using a telecommunications system. These provisions could be
very important for women and girls. Studies
suggest that they are more likely to be targeted by online threats of sexual
violence and attacks alleging sexual promiscuity than are heterosexual men and
boys.

Criminal sanctions for these behaviours
could make a meaningful statement not only about protecting youth, but also about
our commitment to gender equality and to minimizing barriers to girls’ and
young women’s full participation in our emerging digital society. But with no proactive initiatives to change
prejudices that leave women and girls open to these kinds of attacks, we are offered
only reactive criminal sanctions that in the past have done little on their own
to reduce women and children’s vulnerability to sexual violence.

We should not dismiss outright the
potential for criminal prohibitions on non-consensual distribution of intimate
images as a community condemnation of one egregious form of “cyberbullying”. But unless incorporated into a more
comprehensive strategy, its impact is likely to be more symbolic than
real. We must directly address why
displays of women’s sexuality or recordings of sexual violence against young women
are understood as a way of shaming them.
This is particularly perplexing given the media culture that tells girls
and women they should be “sexy” in a predefined way that is really just
designed to sell them everything from diet pills to cosmetics to plastic
surgery and more. Perhaps we need to
intervene here too, to target online business models that use our personal
information to profile us and then market to us according to that profile,
perpetuating harmful myths and stereotypes about women and girls, as well as
other social groups.

Finally, whatever one thinks of the
potential of the new criminal prohibition in terms of meaningfully addressing
“cyberbullying”, it is exceptionally objectionable to see the government
advancing once again the state surveillance agenda on the backs of our children. If the bill were seriously intended to
protect our children, then at a minimum the new surveillance powers would be tied
specifically and exclusively to the “cyberbullying” provisions. Can we expect that, as it did previously with
the lawful access bill, this government will again try to bully us by accusing those
who oppose expanding state surveillance of being unconcerned about the
vulnerable in our midst?

A government that aims to provide
meaningful long-term protection for those disproportionately targeted by
“cyberbullying” would bring us a stand-alone bill that addressed gendered hate
speech, non-consensual distribution of intimate images and criminal harassment
via telecommunications systems. That government would not have repealed a human
rights based remedy for hateful online attacks on vulnerable social groups and
their members, as this government did earlier this year. That government would commit to a broader
strategy for “cyberbullying” in all of its forms. That strategy would do more than just react
to certain instances of “cyberbullying” with punitive measures. It would also include proactive approaches
for addressing the social structures and behavioural factors that contribute to
the multitude of situations encompassed by the broad term “cyberbullying”. The victims of “cyberbullying” and Canadians
as a whole deserve no less.